David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 22, 2020, 20:40 (18 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Don't be sad just because, guided by Adler, I strongly disagree with your views of God. The bold is your humanized view of my approach in which I do not try to explain why God, as Creator, produced what He did over the time periods He chose.

dhw: The bold refers to the fact that you have no idea (and therefore say you do not try to explain) why your God would have chosen the method you impose on him to fulfil the purpose you impose on him. But yes, I am human. So are you.

Yes, I will stick to humans as His purpose, and accept the lengths of time He used since that is pure known history of how creation occurred.


dhw: But you have no idea how your chosen theory fits the facts you know, because you have no idea why your God chose to fulfil his one and only purpose in the manner you impose on him! My agnosticism has nothing to do with it.

I impose nothing. I simply accept how reality appeared over time by a creating God. How can I possibly know why He created such delays? I can guess like you do, but I won't


dhw: Your theory is illogical because you have a fixed view that your God could have fulfilled his one and only purpose any way he chose, but chose to spend 3.X billion years not fulfilling it. You reject other theistic interpretations of the facts solely on the grounds that they “humanize” God although you say your God probably thinks like us humans.

My concept of an all-powerful God is that He cam do anything He wants in any way He wants. You are right. It is possible He is not fully all-powerful, but considering what He has created, He appears to be all-powerful. You describe Him as less than that in your questioning. Your worry about the delays is an obvious humanizing impatience factor that you keep raising. How do you know God might be impatient?


dhw: I have no objection at all, and never once have I disputed the logic of the design argument. I have always stressed that it is a major factor in my inability to embrace atheism, just as the concept of an unknown, hidden, sourceless, eternal, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent intelligent mind is a major factor in my inability to embrace theism. Now please tell me what aspect of my logic about biochemistry is not allowed by your
background and is accepted by all ID-ers.

DAVID: Tell me what you understand about the subject of biochemistry? Dr. Tour has a view that it is very difficult to work with in making any new molecule or copying an old one to produce it without the help of living material. You can tell me it is complex, but what does that actually mean to you? What does Tour mean to you?

dhw: You do not have to be a biochemist in order to recognize that living forms are so complex that they provide support for the design argument! So here is my logic: I understand from my knowledge of biochemistry that living forms are so complex that they provide evidence for the existence of a designing mind. Now please tell me what aspect of this statement is not allowed by your background and runs counter to what is accepted by all ID-ers.

That statement is exactly correct. And in another thread today I'v e given another overview of the biochemistry of life and that complexity simply demands a designing mind as ID'ers propose. (Sunday, March 22, 2020, 19:06)


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum